DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

44D of the Act. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in failing to note that the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2010 makes it clear that any service which falls within the ambit of 44DA, even if it is in connection with prospecting for, or extraction

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

depreciation on the vehicles given on lease. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the lessor need not himself use the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. The rationale of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court may be applied in the context of section 44BB in as much as section 44BB does

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. FUGRO GEOTEAM AS, DEHRADUN

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

44D of the Act. On the basis of the said conclusion reached by us, we allow the appeals under consideration by setting aside the orders of the High Court passed in each of the cases before it and restoring the view taken by the learned Appellate Commissioner as affirmed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that

M/S. DOLPHIN DRILLING PTE. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation were properly explained and the ld. Authorities below did not consider the explanation of the assessee in right perspective. The next contention of the assessee has been that this issue is squared covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, out of which

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee

M/S. ROLLS ROYCE INDUSTRIAL POWER (INDIA) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 801/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Rolls Royce Industrial Power Vs Dy. Director Of Income Tax, (India) Ltd., C-37, Connaught Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr7629B Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Adv. & Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca & Ms. Pallavi Dinodia, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

44D read with Section 115A of the Act by the Ld. AO and upheld by DRP is erroneous and bad in law. 15.0 That the Ld. AO at the instance of DRP has grossly erred in law in proposing tax on a gross basis on all the following other incomes of the assessee from Godavari Operation & Maintenance Project instead

B J SERVICES CO. MIDDLE EAST LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ADIT(INTL. TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation on the 10 ITA No.3889/Del./2010, 421 & 4831/Del./2012 vehicles given on lease. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the lessor need not himself use the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. The rationale of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court may be applied in the context of section 44BB

ERICSSON TELEPHONE CORPORATION INDIA (AB) (INDIA BRANCH) vs. DDIT, CIRCLE-1(2),,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2000-01

section 44D of the Act, which prohibit any deductions to a foreign company in computing the income by way of fees for technical services received from Indian concerns in pursuance of an agreement made by the foreign company with the Indian concerns after 31.03.1976. In this backdrop of facts, the Assessing Officer held that no deduction could be allowed from

BAKER HUGHES ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES UK LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. TIDEWATER MARINE INTERNATIOANL INC., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. M/S. Ddit, International Taxation, Tidewater Marine International Inc., 17Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A-Subhash Road, Dehradun Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoys Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aaact7573Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Amit Arora, Ca Date Of Hearing 31.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

44D or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person

M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

44D or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishimotorola India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon Circle, 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon Circle, Motorola Excellence Centre, Gurgaon 415/2, Sector-14, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Motorola Solutions India (P) Ltd, Vs. Acit, 415/2, Motorola Excellence Gurgaon Circle, Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Motorola Solutions India (P) Gurgaon Circle, Ltd, Gurgaon 415/2, Motorola Excellence Centre, Mg Road, Haryana Pan: Aaacm9343D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2018

depreciation on the building of the assessee. Further the 90% of net interest income should be reduced and not the gross interest. The above issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules P Ltd V CIT 343 ITR 89 as under :- “9. Explanation (baa) extracted above states that "profits of the business" means

DDIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AMERICAN ASIA PACIFIC LLC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed" In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee for the AY 2003-04 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case, not more than 6 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant Asstt. Year

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MITSUI AND CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

44D read with section 115 of the IT Act. 7.1 The assessee made a detailed submission explaining as to why such offshore supplies should not be attributed to the project office in India. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and held that on reading of section 44BBB, 10% of the amount paid

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MITSUI & CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

44D read with section 115 of the IT Act. 7.1 The assessee made a detailed submission explaining as to why such offshore supplies should not be attributed to the project office in India. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and held that on reading of section 44BBB, 10% of the amount paid